Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients’ Experience with and Factors for Undergoing Screening—Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial
- 1 March 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 286 (3), 873-883
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170228
Abstract
Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3–6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programmeGut, 2016
- Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trialTrials, 2014
- Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2012
- Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trialGut, 2011
- Once-Only Sigmoidoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Follow-up Findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial--SCOREJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011
- Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2010
- Comparing Different Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Italy: Predictors of Patients' ParticipationThe American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2010
- American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2009
- Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in a population-based study: the impact of gender, health care source, and timePreventive Medicine, 2004
- Socioeconomic variation in participation in colorectal cancer screeningJournal of Medical Screening, 2002